Commercial Law Keyed to Warren
Blake v. Woodford Bank & Trust Co
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
This is a review of the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the case of appellee, Wayne Blake (the “appellee”). The circuit court found that appellant, Woodford Bank and Trust (the “appellant”), was excused from not meeting its midnight deadline to return two checks. On December 6, 1973, the appellee, deposited a check into his account at the Morristown Bank, of Morristown, Ohio. The check was drawn on the K & K Farm Account at the appellant bank, Woodford Bank and Trust. On December 19, 1973, appellee deposited a second check to be drawn on the K & K Farm Account. Upon the deposit of the second check, appellee learned that the first check was being returned due to insufficient funds. Due to successful prior dealings with K & K Farm, appellee requested that the first check be re-presented along with the presentment of the second check. The two checks were delivered to the appellant on the morning of Monday, December 24, 1973. The next day, Christmas, was not a banking day, therefore, the next banking day was Wednesday, December 26. Consequently, the bank’s “midnight deadline” was midnight on Wednesday, December 26. The appellant failed to return the checks by its midnight deadline; rather, the appellant returned the checks on Thursday, Dec ember 27. The appellant claims that due to the increased number of checks to be processed due to the Christmas holiday, the break-down of two check processing machines and the absence of a regular bookkeeper they were unable to return the checks on time and should be excused from the deadline obligation. The circuit court found that the bank’s failure to return the two checks by its midnight deadline was excused due to the occurrence of the aforementioned events. On cross-appeal, the appellant argues that it is not liable on the first check. The appellant argues that it met the midnight deadline when the first check was initially presented; therefore, the appellant is not obligated to meet the midnight deadline when the check was re-presented.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.